t clarence darrow

In a mostly forgottenpiece of Americana, 95 years ago in LosAngeles, arguably one of this country’sgreatest lawyers was tried on a charge ofbribery—bribery of jurors in a murdercase. If his defense and history are any indi-cators, it was that lawyer’s controversiallegal career—as much as jury tampering—that were being judged in that Californiacourtroom in 1912.1

By the time Clarence Darrow headedwest to represent defendants in a notoriousmurder case, he was already famous forrepresenting those whom others would notrepresent.

History would remember Darrow asthe man who defended the right of JohnThomas Scopes to teach Darwin’s theoryof evolution—dramatized in the play andeventual movie Inherit the Wind; for hisplea for clemency for Richard Loeb, who,with Nathan Leopold, tried to commit theperfect crime by murdering a classmate—made into the novel and film Compulsion;and as the “greatest champion of labor andthe poor, the ‘attorney for the damned.’”2

It is no hyperbole to say that Darrowwas the most famous lawyer of his time.Most lawyers in the early 1900s were notcourtroom artists, but he was. Starting as arailroad lawyer, he later went on to defendunpopular people and causes. Darrow rep-resented the coal miners during their 1902

strike. He was against the death penalty,organized religion and social discrimination(Id. at 443).

In fact, he switched sides to defend hisfirst great client, Eugene Debs. Debs was aunion organizer who had established the rail-road worker’s union and the Socialist Party,becoming its presidential candidate in fiveelections beginning in 1900. And it was Debswho generated intense public pressure to freeJohn and James McNamara, two brothers

Hon. Robert L. Gottsfield is aretired but called-back full-timejudge of the Superior Court,Maricopa County.

28 A R I Z O N A AT T O R N E Y N O V E M B E R 2 0 0 7 w w w. m y a z b a r. o r g

BY HON. ROBERT L. GOTTSFIELD

The People v. Clarence Darrow

29w w w. m y a z b a r. o r g

accused of blowing up a newspaper plant, anaction that led to the death of 20 men.

It was his representation of the brothersMcNamara that would lead to chargesagainst Darrow himself. How he reachedthat pass says much about the times inwhich Darrow lived and the commitmenthe felt to the plight of working people.

Early-1900s America was an age of indus-trial violence. As the means and methods ofproduction changed and consolidated,workers confronted sometimes shockingworking conditions and a declining stan-dard of living. For many, a solution lay inthe unity of organized labor.

In that tempest of labor strife, an auxil-iary plant of the Los Angeles Times wasblown up by dynamite, killing 20. Thiswould be a tragedy and high-profile case inany age; in that tinderbox, the ensuing trialwas called the greatest labor case, murdercase and political trial in the country’s his-tory (Id. at 3). Accused of the deed wereJames Barnabas McNamara and his brotherJohn Joseph McNamara, treasurer of theBridge and Structural Iron Worker’s Union.John Joseph was a lawyer, a respected laborleader and a devout Catholic. He was a heroto the working man.

Darrow traveled west from Chicago toLos Angeles to represent the brothers. Hewas the acknowledged leader of a “band ofradicals, intellectuals, workers andreporters, who were prepared to followhim anywhere” (Id. at 22).

At Darrow’s urging and just before trial,the brothers pleaded guilty. John Josephwas sentenced to life and James, the leastculpable and under the control of hisbrother, to 15 years. Fifteen-thousand menand women lined the streets outside thecourthouse, “many whose hopes and idealshad been so deeply invested in the broth-ers’ innocence” (Id. at 268). Eventually,the brothers were released from SanQuentin within 10 years.

Out of this scenario came the 1912 trial ofthe bribery charge against Darrow.Specifically, Darrow, lead defense counsel,

was charged with using his chief jury inves-tigator, Burt Franklin, to bribe two jurorsin the trial.

Darrow was alleged to have arranged,through Franklin, the bribery of twoMcNamara jurors. The first was GeorgeLockwood, a Civil War veteran and retiredcounty employee whom, it was alleged, wasto be paid $4,000 for his acquittal vote.The second juror was Robert Bain, anotherCivil War veteran, down on his luck andemployed as a carpenter, though already inhis seventies; much was made of his need tomake payments on a new house (Id. at 25).

The police arrested Burt Franklin at thescene of the alleged payoff. It appears thatLockwood had been outraged by the offer,and he had notified the police in advance(Id. at 231-233, 236-237). Spotted nearthe payoff scene—but not arrested—wasClarence Darrow.

Franklin’s arrest was made prior to theMcNamara guilty pleas. Therefore,Darrow’s motives in having them pleadguilty thereafter have always been chal-lenged, by both allies and enemies. Healways maintained he did it to save their livesand not to save his own skin from a possiblebribery indictment. Nonetheless, that indict-ment eventually was handed down.

The Lockwood bribery trial was triedfirst, in Los Angeles. Darrow’s defenseteam consisted of four lawyers includingDarrow. His chief counsel was Earl Rogers,allegedly the most brilliant criminal lawyerin Los Angeles. Rogers gave the first clos-ing argument at the conclusion of the trial,but Darrow also was permitted to speak inhis own defense following Rogers’ summa-tion. And Darrow’s closing was a dramaticone, transforming the trial for theLockwood jurors into far more than a caseabout jury tampering.

Joseph Ford, a prosecutor, had opened thetrial with a stunning and venomous person-al attack on Darrow. His words were punc-tuated by his vociferous use of a handy spit-toon (Id. at 410-412). Ford comparedDarrow to Judas Iscariot and BenedictArnold—with the only qualification beingthat Darrow’s crime was even more despi-cable.

The prosecution carried out this person-al attack throughout the trial. But it aidedin Darrow’s strategy at trial as well as hisclosing argument. Darrow’s aim was toshow his damnation by the prosecution was“not so much because he was a ‘jurybriber,’ but because he had been for yearsthe champion of labor” (Id. at 412).

As Darrow began his closing argument,all conversation ended among the hugecrowd of spectators. The 12 jurors, all men,eyed him intently. Present were his trade-mark unkempt hair and unruly lock fallingover his forehead. His voice was low, hishands in his pockets. He looked from jurorto juror as he spoke3:

Gentlemen of the jury, it is not easy toargue a case of importance, even whenyou are talking about someone else. Anexperience like this never came to mebefore. Of course, I cannot say how Iwill get along with it. But I have felt,gentlemen, by the patience you havegiven this case for all these weeks, thatyou would be willing to listen to me. Imight now argue it as well as I wouldsome other case, but I felt that I oughtto say something to you twelve menbesides what I said on the witness stand.

In the first place, I am a defendant,charged with a serious crime. I havebeen looking into the penitentiary forsix or seven months, waiting for youtwelve men to say whether I shall go ornot. In the next place, I am a stranger ina strange land, two thousand miles awayfrom home and friends, although I amproud to say here, so far away, therehave gathered around me as good andloyal and faithful friends as any mancould ever have upon the face of theearth. Still I am unknown to you.

I think I can say that no one in mynative town would have made to anyjury any such statement as was made ofme by the assistant district attorney inopening his summation. I will venture tosay he could not afterward have found acompanion except among detectives andcrooks and sneaks in a city where I live ifhe had dared to open his mouth in theinfamous way that he did in this case.But I am in his hands. Think of it! In aposition where he can call me a coward.

N O V E M B E R 2 0 0 7 A R I Z O N A AT T O R N E Y

In all my life, I never saw or heard socowardly, sneaky, and brutal an attack asthis thing here perpetrated on me.

Was any courage displayed by him? Itwas only brutal and low, and every manknows it. This attack of Ford’s was cow-ardly and malicious in the extreme. Itwas not worthy of a man and it did notcome from a man.

What am I on trial for, gentlemen ofthe jury? You have been listening herefor three months. If you don’t know,then you are not as intelligent as Ibelieve. I am not on trial for havingsought to bribe a man namedLockwood. There may be and doubtlessare many people who think I did seek tobribe him, but I am not on trial for that.I am on trial because I have been a loverof the poor, a friend of the oppressed,because I have stood by labor for allthese years, and have brought downupon my head the wrath of the criminalinterests in this county. Whether guiltyor innocent of the crime charged in thisindictment, that is the reason I am here,and that is the reason I have been pur-sued by as cruel a gang as ever followeda man.

Will you tell me, gentlemen of thejury, why the Erector’s Association ofIndianapolis (a manufacturers’ associa-tion) should have put up as vicious and

cruel a plot to catch me as was ever usedon any American citizen? Are these peo-ple interested in bribery? Why almostevery dollar of their ill-gotten gains hascome from bribery.

It is not that any of these men careabout bribery, but there never was achance before, since the world began, toclaim that bribery had been committedfor the poor.

Suppose I am guilty of bribery. Isthat why I am prosecuted in this court?Is that why, by the most infamous meth-ods known to the law, these men, thereal enemies of society, are trying to getme inside the penitentiary?

No, that isn’t it, and you twelveknow it. These men are interested ingetting me. They have concocted allsorts of schemes for the sake of gettingme out of the way. Do you suppose theycare about what laws I might have bro-ken? I have committed one crime, onecrime which is like that against the HolyGhost, which cannot be forgiven. I havestood for the weak and the poor. I havestood for the men who toil. And there-fore I have stood against them, and nowthis is their chance. All right, gentlemen,I am in your hands, not theirs, just yet.

I am tried here because I have givena large part of my life and my services tothe cause of the poor and the weak, and

because I am in the way of the interests.These interests would stop my voice—and they have hired many vipers to helpthem do it. They would stop myvoice—my voice, which from the time Iwas a prattling babe my father andmother taught me to raise for justiceand freedom, and in the cause of theweak and the poor.

They would stop my voice with thepenitentiary. … You know not what youdo. Let me say to you, that if you sendme to prison within the gray, dim wallsof San Quentin there will brood asilence more ominous and eloquentthan any words my poor lips could everframe. And do you think that youwould destroy the hopes of the poorand the oppressed if you did silence menow? Don’t you know that upon mypersecution and destruction would ariseten thousand men, abler than I havebeen, more devoted than I have been,and ready to give more than I havegiven in a righteous cause.

I have been, perhaps, interested inmore cases for the weak and poor thanany other lawyer in America, but I ampretty nearly done, anyhow. If they hadtaken me twenty years ago, it mighthave been worth their while. But thereare younger men than I, and there aremen who will not be awed by prison



Eugene Debs

Edgar Lee Masters,a lawyer and poet,

best known later forSpoon River Anthology,

was Darrow’s law partner at the time ofboth prosecutions. Hespent countless hourshelping Darrow in the

bribery trials.

As noted,Eugene Debscreated greatpublic interestin the murdertrial of the twobrothers that

led to thecharges of

bribery.

William J. Burns,of Burns Detective

Agency fame, was atthe time “the most

celebrated (and self-promoting)

detective inAmerican history,”calling himself asecond Sherlock

Holmes. The City ofLos Angeles hired

him to discover whohad blown up

the Los AngelesTimes plant.

Samuel Gompers,who built the

AmericanFederation of Labor

into a nationallycredible union, wasthe prime reasonDarrow took the

case. Gompers’ rep-utation and careerwere threatened bythe charges against

the McNamaras.

Lincoln Steffanswas the

“muckraking”journalist who

uncovered storiesof bribery and corruption and

tried to settle theMcNamara case.

Jerry Geislerwas a young

lawyer–researcher for

Darrow and oneof Darrow’s

criminal lawyersin the Lockwoodbribery trial. Helater becamefamous as anattorney for

movie stars indivorce and

criminal matters.

And finally,E. W. Scripps,

newspaperpublisher and

owner ofUnited Press,

was an outspoken

friend of theworker and an

adviser toClarenceDarrow.

Edgar Lee Masters William J. Burns Samuel Gompers Lincoln Steffans Jerry Gelsler E.W. Scripps

CELEBRITY TRIAL, Circa 1912Clarence Darrow, defendant, was far from the only remarkable figure to distinguish his bribery trial. A fascinating cast of characters populated the

stage of the legal drama, many of whom are still recognizable almost 100 years later1:

1. See GEOFFREY COWAN, THE PEOPLE V. CLARENCE DARROW: THE BRIBERY TRIALS OF AMERICA’S GREATEST LAWYER xxi-xxix (1993).

bars, by district attorneys, by detectives,who will do this work when I am done.

I am about as fitted for jury bribingas a Methodist preacher! If you 12 menthink that I would pick out a place ablock from my office—and send a manwith money in his hand in broad day-light to go down on the street corner topass four thousand dollars—why, findme guilty. I certainly belong in somestate institution.

Gentlemen, I have been human. Ihave done both good and evil. But Ihope that when the last reckoning ismade the good will overbalance the evil,and if it does, then I have done well. Ihope it will so overbalance it that youjurors will believe it is not to the interestof the state to have me spend the rest ofmy life in prison.

Darrow’s closing began on a Wednesdaya little after 2:00 p.m. and ended onThursday at noon, with an evening break inbetween. During his oration, he had gottenthe jurors to focus on the good he haddone against the forces of “evil” in socie-ty—manufacturer’s associations, prosecu-tors and detectives. But he also stressed theuphill battle he had fought in theMcNamara case and the brothers’ goodthough misguided intentions. He pleadedfor compassion for his former clients andcompassion for himself.

Darrow also made a plea for jury nullifi-cation, that “as a matter of collective con-science—and in the interest of a highersense of justice”—allowed jurors to freeWilliam Penn and John Peter Zenger. Atthe end of his summation, reporters wrotethat Darrow was crying, the jurors wereweeping—as was the crowded courtroom(Id. at 426).

The prosecution’s final argument endedFriday afternoon. By Saturday morning, thejury began deliberations about 9:20 a.m.Less than 40 minutes later, they returned anot-guilty verdict. The courtroom explod-ed with excitement.

In its short tenure, the jurors had heldthree ballots for acquittal: 8–4, 10–5 andfinally 12–0.

The second trial, regarding the jurorRobert Bain, was tougher going forDarrow, but the result was the same. That1913 trial ended with a hung jury.

Deliberations had extended to 40 hours,and the panel had decided 8–4 for convic-tion. Darrow was never retried.

Clarence Darrow died at 80 years of ageon March 13, 1938. One of Darrow’s for-mer law partners, Judge William Holly,delivered the eulogy; as Darrow put it,“He knows everything about me, and hasthe sense not to tell it.” An elegant touch,the eulogy had been written and givenbefore by Darrow at the funeral of a closeassociate and mentor; Judge Holly hadmerely changed the names (Id. at 444-45).As Holly recited:

Clarence Darrow was a soldier in theeverlasting struggle of the human racefor liberty and justice on the earth. …We may not know what justice is. …But mercy is a quality that we can allrecognize, and in his heart was infinitepity and mercy for the poor, theoppressed, the weak and erring—allraces, all colors, all creeds and allhumankind.


1. This article is based on GEOFFREY COWAN,THE PEOPLE V. CLARENCE DARROW: THE

BRIBERY TRIALS OF AMERICA’S GREATEST

LAWYER (1993). See also IRVING STONE,CLARENCE DARROW FOR THE DEFENSE

(1941); CLARENCE DARROW, ATTORNEY

FOR THE DAMNED (1957, ArthurWeinberg. Ed.). Books exoneratingDarrow of the bribery charges discussedherein are Stone’s book and Darrow’s ownautobiography, THE STORY OF MY LIFE

(1932). The book by Cowan, an attorneyand Darrow scholar, takes the positionthat Darrow may well have committedbribery and that his friends at the timewere overwhelmingly of the view that hedid it (7-8).

2. COWAN, supra note 1, at 5. Many may alsoremember the one man play by DavidRintek, Clarence Darrow, starring HenryFonda, which toured in the 1970s.Moreover, All Too Human, a one-manshow, is still playing around the countryand refers to the bribery trials.

3. Id. What appears here is from the trial tran-script reported by COWAN at 416-422 inpertinent part.

endnotes


AZAT

t clarence darrow

Documents